Why Not the ‘Royal Fetus’ or ‘Royal Blob’ of Tissue?

Whoever controls the language controls the debate. Liberals have been good at language control. It’s not killing an unborn baby; it’s a woman’s “freedom of choice.” It’s not same-sex sexuality; it’s “gay rights.” It’s not governmental theft; it’s “fixing income inequality.” Social Security, Affordable Care Act, Department of Homeland Security, Patriot Act, all language control. The list could go on, but you get the idea.

Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass, understood the importance of controlling the language:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,'” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you . . . . When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

Now we come to the new Royal Baby of Kate Middleton. That’s what the media are calling the glob of tissue. For selling papers, magazines, and visits to websites in order to boost ad revenue, Kate must be pregnant with a baby. Liberals can’t sell the story if it’s just a “fetus.”


The following is from the LifeNews.com site:


The British royal couple announced today that they’re expecting their second child and Kate is being treated for severe morning sickness. The couple’s Clarence House office said they and their families were “delighted” with the baby news.

All over the Internet and on social media, people were again using the term “Royal Baby.” The potential terms “royal fetus” or “royal blob of tissue” haven’t caught on. Again, it seems as if the world again has settled on the fact that a baby before birth is a human baby.

The phrase “#RoyalBaby” immediately became a top trending topic on Twitter and has remained that way since.

Christian writer Eric Metaxas pointed out last year that the same phenomenon occurred:

The battle over human dignity is waged not just at the local abortion clinic or crisis pregnancy center, nor merely in the halls of Congress or the Supreme Court. It is also carried out in our choice of words.

The war on the sanctity of human life relies on bullets of deception and warheads of untruth—in short, on what George Orwell called “political language,” which he said “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Those who support the legal killing of unborn human beings in the womb have used political language for decades, cloaking their morally indefensible position in innocuous-sounding terms such as “choice” and “women’s health”—hoping the rest of us will forget about the status and rights of the other person directly affected in the abortion transaction—namely the fetus.

For any who express the slightest qualms about the unborn, these political language manipulators are quick to deny the humanity or personhood of the fetus, calling it a “lump of tissue,” a “product of conception,” or even a “potential person”! Thus, by their choice of vocabulary, they attempt to subvert thought and the normal human compassion we would feel for the 50 million defenseless human beings legally aborted—make that snuffed out—in their mothers’ wombs since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

But it’s hard to keep up the verbal sleight of hand all the time. A case in point is the considerable elation over the news that Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, was carrying a child. That’s right, a child, not a “product of conception”!

The Brits are clearly—and rightly—treating the royal baby not as a clump of cells to be disposed of for any reason but as fully human, as a person. Yes, friends, the language we use matters. Is the life in the womb a “product of conception” or a person, maybe even a prince in waiting?

Philosopher Peter Kreeft says that the “personhood of the fetus is clearly the crucial issue for abortion, for if the fetus is not a person, abortion is not the deliberate killing of an innocent person.” Kreeft adds, “Persons have a ‘right to life’ but non-persons (e.g., cells, tissues, organs, and animals) do not.”

Friends, our greatest weapon in the defense of human dignity is not bombs or bullets but the truth. Let’s wield it. For as Orwell also said, “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

 To read more go to LifeNews.com

Previous post

What the Armenian Genocide Can Teach Us about the Islamic Caliphate

Next post

Atheists Want ‘Under God’ Removed from Pledge of Allegiance